Punjab

Sangrur

CC/182/2017

Jagtar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Lovepreet Walia

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 182                                                                                         

                                                               Instituted on:    03.05.2017                           

                                                                Decided on:     18.08.2017

 

Jagtar Singh son of Taranjit Singh  resident of Ram Nagar Basti, Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector 43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon ( Haryana) through its Managing Director.

2.   M/s Gaurav Communications, Ist Floor, Inside Gaushalla Road, Near Railway Chowk, Sangrur through its proprietor.

3.   National Time, Authorized showroom of Samsung Mobiles, Court Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

 

 

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri  Lovepreet walia Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1            :     Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate.

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.2&3   :     Exparte                         

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                

1.             Jagtar Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Samsung Mobile set model J-2 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.8000/- vide retail invoice no. 5271 dated 28.02.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year.   In the first week of February 2017, mobile in question started giving problem of incoming calls and hanging for which the complainant approached OP no.2  who kept the mobile set in question with it  and  when the complainant received  the mobile set he was shocked to see that mobile's touch  was damaged by official of the OP no.2.  On 17.02.2017  the complainant approached the OP no.2 who issued job sheet dated 17.02.2017 . Thereafter the complainant approached the Op no.2 number of times to handover the mobiles set but the OP no.2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 21.02.2017 the OP no.2 told the complainant that the set is not curable/ repairable yet it is within the warranty period. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of defective mobile set i.e. Rs.8000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.2 and 3 did not appear and as such OPs no.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 13.06.2017.

3.             In reply filed by OP No. 1, preliminary objections on the grounds of concealment of true facts, abuse of process of law, cause of action, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary party have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted.  It is stated that  handset has been mishandled by the complainant leading to ' Display / touch damage of the handset.  Due to breaking of display screen the handset was not covered under warranty and repair was to be done on chargeable basis only. The handset in question was purchased on 28.02.2016 and for the first time the same was submitted with OP no.2 on 17.02.2017 after more than 11 months of purchase. On inspection of handset by the OP no.2 the handset was found to be physically damaged as the "display was damaged" which shows that there is no inherent defect in the handset.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence.

5.             It is not disputed on record that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in dispute from the OP no.3. It is the case of the complainant that when he received the mobile set in question then he was shocked to see that mobile's touch was damaged by the official of the OP no.2 and he requested the OP no.2 but it flatly refused to repair the mobile set  and finally on 17.02.2017  he again approached the Op no.2 who issued job sheet dated 17.02.2017.

6.             On the other hand, it is the specific case of the OP no.1 that touch display of the handset was broken when it was submitted with the Op no.2 for the first time on 17.02.2017. It has been further stated that the complainant for the first time  submitted his handset  with Op no.2  on 17.02.2017  since its purchase and OP no.2 checked   the mobile set  and found display/ touch broken.  This fact was mentioned in the job sheet in the column defect description it is clearly mentioned "touch damage" apart from other reported problems.

7.             We have perused the job sheet dated 17.02.2017 Ex.C-3 and found that in the column" defect description it has been specifically mentioned  that there are incoming problem, touch damage, some  time battery backup problem. Copy of this job sheet has been produced on record by the complainant himself which means that this fact regarding touch damage was in the knowledge of the complainant at the time of giving the mobile set in question to the OP no.2 on 17.02.2017 which falsifies the version of the complainant  in the complaint that  official of the OP no.2 damaged the mobile touch. The OP no.1 has produced on record copy of Annexure R-4 wherein it has been mentioned that in case of any damage to the produce / misuse detected by the authorized service centre personnel the warranty conditions are not applicable and repairs will be done subject to availability of parts and on a chargeable basis. In the present case the position is similar.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we find that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case. So, the present complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                 Announced

                August 18, 2017

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg)   (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                 Member            Member                         President